Skip to main content

A Taco Bell Employee Purchases a Discounted Meal & Has To Eat It On Premises During the Break? Enjoy, But Do Not Expect to Be Paid For It


Rodriguez v. Taco Bell - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Bernardina Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") worked at Taco Bell.  During her employment, she had a 30 minute meal break and had the voluntary option to purchase a meal at a discount, provided the meal was eaten at the restaurant.  Taco Bell implemented this policy to prevent theft.  Rodriguez proceeded to file a putative class action against Taco Bell on the grounds that she was entitled to paid for the time spent on the premises eating the discounted meal during meal breaks.  Rodriguez argued that since Taco Bell requited the discounted meal to be eaten at the restaurant, she was under "sufficient employer control" to render this time compemsable.

The district court ruled in favor of Taco Bell on the grounds that the employees were free to use the 30 minute break however they wanted and were only subject to the restriction to stay on premises if they voluntarily chose to purchase a discounted meal.  Rodriguez subsequently appealed.

Holding:  Generally speaking, California requires that non-exempt employees be afforded rest and meal breaks after working a certain number of hours.  The Court pointed out that California Wage Order 5-2001 requires employees be relieved of all duty during a requisite meal period.  For those employers found to have violated this Wage Order, they are required to pay the employees "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided."  Relying upon a California Supreme Court decision, the Court noted that employers fulfill their obligation to provide meal periods to their employees when they relieve their "employees of all duty, relinquish[] control over their activities and permit [] them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30 minute break, and do[] not impede or discourage them from doing so."

Rodriguez acknowledged that while the condition of "on premises consumption" of discounted meals was to ensure the meals were not taken off the premises and given to someone else, employees were still under Taco Bell's control during the meal period.  As Taco Bell had asserted previously, and did again before the Court of Appeals, the discounted meal purchase was voluntary and employees were free to choose to spend their break time however they wanted.

In this case, the Court found that Taco Bell's meal policy satisfied the standard as set forth in the California Supreme Court case, as employees were relieved of all duty and Taco Bell relinquished control over their activities.  Of note, the Court pointed out that the discounted meal purchase was voluntary, employees were free to leave the premises or spend the break in any way they chose, and were even free to purchase a meal at full price and eat them wherever they chose.

Judgment:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling and held that Taco Bell did not violate California Wage Order 5-2001 when it required its employees to stay on premises and eat a discounted meal that they had voluntarily purchased, thus these employees were not under "sufficient employer control" and therefore were not entitled to compensation for being required to stay on premises to eat their discounted meal.

The Takeaway:  While Rodriguez had a novel argument, I think it fell short on several grounds (notwithstanding the great weight of caselaw against her).  For one, the purchase of the discounted meals was voluntary.  Instead, employees could choose to not purchase a discounted meal and leave the premises.  As well, employees could even choose to purchase a meal at regular price and leave the premises.  Taco Bell's reasoning for implementing the "on premises consumption" for its discounted meal purchase made sense (with Rodriguez herself even acknowledging Taco Bell's reasoning for the policy).  Given this justification, I think the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got it right when it held that Taco Bell employees that voluntarily chose to purchase a discounted meal and had to stay on premises to eat it were not entitled to compensation under California Wage Order 5-2001.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Schroeder

Date:  July 18, 2018

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/RodriguezTacoBell071818.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more